Saturday, November 12, 2011

GUESS WHERE ALL THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST CAIN COME FROM

By Ann CoulterTOWNHALL, Nov. 9, 2011

Herman
Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country --
Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, D.C. -- but
never in Chicago.

So
it's curious that all the sexual harassment allegations against Cain
emanate from Chicago: home of the Daley machine and Obama consigliere
David Axelrod.

Suspicions
had already fallen on Sheila O'Grady, who is close with David Axelrod
and went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's
chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association
(IRA), as being the person who dug up Herman Cain's personnel records
from the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The
Daley-controlled IRA works hand-in-glove with the NRA. And strangely
enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only
period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have
been a sexual predator.

After
O'Grady's name surfaced in connection with the miraculous appearance of
Cain's personnel files from the NRA, she issued a Clintonesque denial
of any involvement in producing them -- by vigorously denying that she
knew Cain when he was at the NRA. (Duh.)

And
now, after a week of conservative eye-rolling over unspecified,
anonymous accusations against Cain, we've suddenly got very specific
sexual assault allegations from an all-new accuser out of ... Chicago.

Herman
Cain has never lived in Chicago. But you know who has? David Axelrod!
And guess who lived in Axelrod's very building? Right again: Cain's
latest accuser, Sharon Bialek.

Bialek's accusations were certainly specific. But they also demonstrated why anonymous accusations are worthless.

Within
24 hours of Bialek's press conference, friends and acquaintances of
hers stepped forward to say that she's a "gold-digger," that she was
constantly in financial trouble -- having filed for personal bankruptcy
twice -- and, of course, that she had lived in Axelrod's apartment
building at 505 North Lake Shore Drive, where, she admits, she knew the
man The New York Times calls Obama's "hired muscle."

Throw in some federal tax evasion, and she's Obama's next Cabinet pick.

The
reason all this is relevant is that both Axelrod and Daley have a
history of smearing political opponents by digging up claims of sexual
misconduct against them.

John
Brooks, Chicago's former fire commissioner, filed a lawsuit against
Daley six months ago claiming Daley threatened to smear him with sexual
harassment accusations if Brooks didn't resign. He resigned -- and the
sexual harassment allegations were later found to be completely false.

Meanwhile,
as extensively detailed in my book "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their
Assault on America," the only reason Obama became a U.S. senator --
allowing him to run for president -- is that David Axelrod pulled sealed
divorce records out of a hat, first, against Obama's Democratic primary
opponent, and then against Obama's Republican opponent.

One
month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was
way down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire
securities trader.

But
then The Chicago Tribune -- where Axelrod used to work -- began
publishing claims that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought
an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce
proceedings.

From
then until Election Day, Hull was embroiled in fighting the allegation
that he was a "wife beater." He and his ex-wife eventually agreed to
release their sealed divorce records. His first ex-wife, daughters and
nanny defended him at a press conference, swearing he was never violent.
During a Democratic debate, Hull was forced to explain that his wife
kicked him and he had merely kicked her back.

Hull's
substantial lead just a month before the primary collapsed with the
nonstop media attention to his divorce records. Obama sailed to the
front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10
percent of the vote.

Luckily for Axelrod, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced.

The
Republican nominee was Jack Ryan, a graduate of Dartmouth and Harvard
law and business schools, who had left his lucrative partnership at
Goldman Sachs to teach at an inner-city school on the South Side of
Chicago.

But
in a child custody dispute some years earlier, Ryan's ex-wife,
Hollywood sex kitten Jeri Lynn Ryan, had alleged that, while the couple
was married, Jack had taken her to swingers clubs in Paris and New York.

Jack
Ryan adamantly denied the allegations. In the interest of protecting
their son, he also requested that the records be put permanently under
seal.

Axelrod's
courthouse moles obtained the "sealed" records and, in no time, they
were in the hands of every political operative in Chicago. Knowing
perfectly well what was in the records, Chicago Tribune attorneys flew
to California and requested that the court officially "unseal" them --
over the objections of both Jack and Jeri Ryan.

Your honor, who knows what could be in these records!

A
California judge ordered them unsealed, which allowed newspapers to
publish the salacious allegations, and four days later, Ryan dropped out
of the race under pressure from idiot Republicans (who should be
tracked down and shot).

With
a last-minute replacement of Alan Keyes as Obama's Republican opponent,
Obama was able to set an all-time record in an Illinois Senate
election, winning with a 43 percent margin.

And
that's how Obama became a senator four years after losing a
congressional race to Bobby Rush. (In a disastrous turn of events, Rush
was not divorced.)

Axelrod
destroyed the only two men who stood between Obama and the Senate with
illicitly obtained, lurid allegations from their pasts.

In
2007, long after Obama was safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, The New
York Times reported: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece
(on Hull's sealed divorce records) later acknowledged in print that the
Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the
story."

Some
had suggested, the Times article continued, that Axelrod had "an even
more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."

This
time, Obama's little helpers have not only thrown a bomb into the
Republican primary, but are hoping to destroy the man who deprives the
Democrats of their only argument in 2012: If you oppose Obama, you must
be a racist.

13 comments:

The enemies of All That Is Good And Wholesome in this country, including Obama and his conspirators in the Democratic party, have scandalized the American people not only by their tragic economic and social positions, but equally so by the very means through which they attempt to seize power and preserve it. The underhanded machinations they employ, exemplified by the most recent accusations agains Mr. Cain, threaten to eradicate utterly any vestige of respect the people of this country may have for not only they themselves, but for the entire political world as well. I fear only divine intervention can change the political culture of this nation, because our elected officials seem not to be able to agree on anthying at all, including the truth that kindness, respect and honor are essential to the political process itself and the good of this nation's continued existence.

Ann Coulter's article is on target, as usual. Her article is summed up in the FIRST sentence of the first paragraph: "Herman Cain has spent his life living and working all over the country... but never in Chicago." Everything in Coulter's article after that is icing on the cake. We simply need to remember the adage: "Consider the source." The source of these false accusations against Cain stem from Obama's springboard, that is, Chicago. Cain has no real history with Chicago though. Again... consider the source.

We have an innocent lamb who is forced to wallow with the filthy swine in a pig pen environment. Reminds me of another saying: "Never wrestle with pigs. Everyone gets dirty, but the pigs like it." Unfortunately, the political arena seems to be a pig pen nowadays, where only the pigs flourish and thrive. The real question: How do politicians with principles and integrity co-exist, and THRIVE, in such an unhealthy environment?

I have been a faithful follower of Leo Rugiens' blogs over the years, and the posts with commentary have always been a source of learning and edification. Thank you Leo Rugiens!

IgnatiusMartinus, thank you for your commentaries as well. You might be seeing more of my "two cents" in the future, I look forward to sharing thoughts amongst like minded men.

IgnatiusMartinus, I would like your feedback and reflections on something you wrote in a previous comment. You stated that "...kindness, respect and honor are essential to the political process itself and the good of this nation's continued existence." My question to you: "ARE kindness, respect and honor truly essential to the political process itself?" Now, I would personally WANT to believe that these virtuous modes of operating are essential to OUR political process or any other political process for that matter. However, it seems that since The Fall and original sin, selfishness and impure motives are endemic to most political processes, be they democratic processes or other systems and processes.

Our Lord Jesus was crucified (for our sins) on account of an imperfect political process, millions of babies have been murdered legally in America on account of an imperfect political process, millions of other atrocities are committed legally in other countries daily on account of their political processes. I am not promoting anarchical government and I DO believe in being politically active, but I often wonder if ANY political process is essentially good...

What ** IS ** and what ** SHOULD BE ** are often two separate realities. Could it be that the political process/system in America ** IS ** fundamentally good, is essentially limping along because of original sin and the men who are also limping because of original as well as actual sin? I ask these questions because your statement, IgnatiusMartinus, struck to the core of questions I've been mulling over quite a bit in recent months.

Reverend Father Patrick, thank you for the mental challenge you have proposed to me. When I was writing that line, I had in mind how individual politicians and officials go about their political lives, how they operate in the political world. If one human person can hold strong to kindness, respect and honor (and from I can tell Mr. Herman Cain has proved himself as an example), then why can't others be held to the same standard? If one man can show kindness, respect and honor in the process of running for some office, should we not expect and demand the same from those who would do the same? Or should there be a double-standard in the political sphere? One for this man, another for that woman? If God holds ALL INDIVIDUALS, be they politicians or no, to one single standard in their personal lives, does He not also hold them to that same standard in their political lives? I think we know the answer to that. I hold that we are only desiring and expecting what God wants and expects when we say, "every politician and elected official must be virtuous in their political lives". I've heard it said that priests should be held to a higher standard in those case of alleged child abuse, etc., because they are men who represent God Almighty and should therefore be held to this higher standard. Similarly, should we not also hold politicans and wann-be officials to a similar higher standard, being that they are representing The People of this great country? Bottom line is: I don't know. These thoughts are just my two cents. I am not a priest and am not a politician, so what I say in these matters may be just pure non-sense. :-)

I would like to present a more cohesive argument for why “kindness, respect and honor” are essential to the political process itself. I fear my last comment was made in haste. Please allow me to clarify my stance.

Wikipedia, in its article, “Decline of the Roman Empire”, states:

The decline of the Roman Empire refers to the gradual societal collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Many theories of causality prevail, but most concern the disintegration of political, economic, military, and other social institutions, in tandem with foreign invasions and usurpers from within the empire.

We can see that the cause of this decline has several aspects: the political, the economic and various other social structures. When kindness, respect and honor are dispensed with in a political system, then that system can certainly continue to exist absolutely, but it in due time it will mortally wound itself and thus die out. For when corruption runs amok in the political world itself, then the other social spheres, including the economic world, begin to follow the same course to self-destruction, regardless of whether these entities in turn were already corrupt to begin with. The evils, then, of the political world feed the flesh-eating bacteria which already are consuming the economic and social realms from within, compounding the problem and increasing the woes of the country as a whole.

So, when the political realm begins to lose all sight of those virtues of kindness, respect and honor, it will in due time begin to fall to pieces. And this, in turn, will lead to the collapse of the stability of the economic and social structure of the country. And subsequent to these tragedies, we then are faced with the fall of the country itself. And when this awful thing happens, the very political processes themselves cease to exist, precisely because there is no longer a country there in which they could play out!!!

And so in conclusion, these virtues of which I speak are necessary to the continued existence of the political world and its processes, and thus to the continued existence of the country as a whole. The political world with its political processes does not exist in a vacuum. It is a necessary aspect of the country itself, and therefore when it ceases to exist as a healthy aspect or component of the country, the rest of the country suffers bitterly. Because the political, economic and social spheres share a mutually symbiotic relationship, and when one begins to suffer, they all begin to suffer. And enough suffering will eventually lead to the fall of the country itself.

And whether we as a country are immune to foreign invasion I do not know, but we do have one usurper “from within the empire”, from within our own country: Obama. If we do not find a way to convince our politicians and elected officials to lead virtuous lives and go about their political lives with these same virtues, I fear that in due time, whether it be in ten years or in a hundred, this nation will fall to its knees and only then will it be made clear that the world of politics and its citizens are not excused from the desires, demands and expectations of God Almighty. Because I believe that when the Lord desires and expects something from a person, a group of persons or a whole country, it is for the very life of that person, group or country. And just as individual persons can die, so can entire nations. God save us all.

Ultimately it comes to this:1. In praxis: We have accepted action without virtue and without reference the good.2. In doxy: We have accepted words without reference to the truth.When there is no good and no truth, everything is mean, vicious, ends-justify-the-means, the world-is-up-for grabs, just carpe diem type stuff. How can you build a polis, a political society, on such stuff?

@ Ignatius- Thank you for your well thought out ideas and reflections. They are not non-sense! I would simply say, about the complex and deep reality of politics in the world: What is necessary for our government to get back on track is ** character ** (part and parcel of the virtues you mentioned earlier), good old fashioned principles, and manners.

What seems endemic to our political system in the U.S.A., today, is the reality of corruption and failure of adherence to the principles which our forefathers founded this nation on. What can we do to recover the lost ground? Or, is "going down" inevitable, and is "going down" with class the best we can hope for? Sorry for sounding so pessimistic.

Dear Father Patrick, thank you, too! I do tend to be an idealist in all my thinking, in all my dreams, in all my hopes and prayers. But is not God Himself an "idealist"? If God did not think it were possible for every human soul on this world to attain to "holiness" by His providential care and aid, then I believe that He would never have given us the Ten Commandments, nor would Christ have died for every last person.

But if every one of us can become holy, a fact and a truth that is proven by God's actions throughout Sacred History, then we can be sure of one thing: we can, if not in practice then at least in principle, transform this world into a physical version of "heaven", a new paradise made possible by Him. And if this were to come about, there would be no more need for politics at all. If this has not happened, or ever will, it will be because we have stumbled over ourselves and have collectively refused to make this a better world, and will continue to do so till the bitter end.

This will not happen, as I understand it, not because it is impossible for us to make the earth into a kind of heaven-like paradise by the aid of Divine grace, but because of our obstinate refusal to change as a race entire, a truth which Revelation has forseen. But, although Revelation says we will never have this heaven-like paradise (at least before Christ's Second Coming), should this be an excuse for us to wave the white flag and succumb to a kind of hopelessness? Heavens, I hope not! Maybe the world as a whole will never become, before the Second Coming, that paradise Christ desired from the beginning, but does that mean that individual nations can't strive for this idyllic utopia? Can we, as a nation, hope to achieve this paradise by the Providence of God, or at least something that approaches this ideal? I don't see why not. Of course I may be wrong in my assumptions here. Therefore, I ask you Father, and you as well Leo Rugiens, if you belive it is possible for us, as a single nation blessed by God from its founding, to attain to this earthly utopia, or at least come close to it.

Ignatius, I love your idealism. Many of my friends would criticize me for adhering to the idealist philosophers (like Plato, Augustine, Bonaventure) more than the realist philosophers (like Aristotle and Aquinas). I see this discussion and discussions like this one in the light of Proverbs 27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens a man." I don't have anything on you, but, sharing ideas and/or challenging each other can be edifying, can't it?

I understand the gist/spirit of what you mean, when you say that we should strive for an idyllic utopia. The spirit of what you mean is a good one, but, we need to be careful. Just as Marx and Engels promoted an end to poverty by doing away with private ownership, so too, striving for a better America (a good thing!) can lead to bad things if we strive for a utopia on earth. Let me elaborate.

After the Fall, there can never be the perfect city on earth. Saint Augustine's De Civitate Dei (The City of God) is a great work of theology and political philosophy. In that work, the Great Saint Augustine comes to the conclusion that there is only one perfect ("utopian") city, and that is The City of God, otherwise referred to as Heaven and Paradise. Basically, we must beware of attempting to realize a utopia (or, "perfect city") on earth, inasmuch as the only perfect city is the City of God, Heaven. Many good political movements start out right, and then, they become the end in and of themselves. We see militant feminism (over and against a TRUE feminine feminism which is good), we see PETA and other such movements which start out right and then end up out of bounds. Our point of departure must always be fundamentally and philosophically sound, or things spin out of control.

Should we struggle and strive with all our might to make this country, this world, or the towns we live in better? Most definitely! But, perfection is not of this world, and while we should ALWAYS strive for perfection while on earth, we must remember that perfection is only attained in heaven.

Another way of looking at your question: You are familiar with the heresy of Liberation Theology. In the late 1970's and early 1980's, Pope John Paul II went ballistic on this heretical movement, with his faithful Cardinal Ratzinger by his side. What was the point of departure for Liberation Theology? In short, these heretical Liberation Theologians looked to EARTH more than they should have for the fulfillment of the Beatitudes, which Jesus preached to us. Only Heaven can be the true "perfect city" which bestows the promises of the Beatitudes, we must beware of searching for a utopia on earth, lest we create another Babel. So... keep your idealism and keep fighting for the BEST politics and BEST government possible. I'll be fighting right beside you.

I think you are probably right. Heck, you're the one with a degree in Theology and with much study in Philosophy and, more thank likely, more well-read than myself. I had read The City of God some years ago, but I guess I forgot about what he said about an earthly utopia. I guess I'm just sick and tired of the corruption and evil and wickedness of today's world, and want something better NOW. I realize that Heaven is perfect, and its bliss is beyond anything we can imagine now. But I've had it up to and above my head with the advocates of abortion, homosexual acts, women priests, child molestation, cartel murders, etc. etc. etc. WE NEED A BREAK from all this garbage. Is there nothing in Theology that can give us hope that we can get at least a brief respite from this trash???

In any case, the Lord is good. Thanks be to God for the goods we DO have even now, the good that's in the world even in its wickedness. For all the good that the Lord has given to me and to us, I am supremely grateful.

I believe Father Patrick would agree in the end man will be judged far more by his actions, intentions and heart than by his words , intellect and tongue. Einstein said the world is a dangerous place not because there is so much evil in the world but because WE refuse to do anything about it.

Translate This Blog

Followers

Subscribe To

Search This Blog

About Me

A Texan who loves the truth and hates the lying, cheating, and deliberate prevarication that characterizes so much of our civic discourse these days.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RIPOSTE, n. 1. Fencing: a quick thrust after parrying a lunge 2. a quick sharp return in speech or action; counterstroke.
- The Random House Dictionary of the English Language...........
You can contact me by sending an email to me at: leorugiens23@gmail.com